(Originally blogged Thursday June 22, 2006)
Excerpts or reproduction of this article in discussions boards, email lists, and other media, electronic or otherwise must be accompanied by a link back to the original article, either through the blog or on this page. All rights reserved.
A Big Blue Wave EXCLUSIVE!
Yesterday, Liberal MP Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce) introduced a Private Members’ Bill restricting late-term abortions. Big Blue Wave has the insider scoop on many of the questions that people have been asking about this bill.
The first thing that jumps at you is the name of the Bill: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after twenty weeks’ of gestation). What’s the deal with the avoidance of the term “abortion” and substituting “miscarriage” instead?
No, it’s not about having a hidden agenda, says Paul Steckle. It’s about using terminology that is consistent with the criminal code and that reflects the mind of the medical establishment. The term "miscarriage" was used in the 1988 abortion law that was struck down by the Supreme Court. The Canadian Medical Association defines an abortion as a pregnancy termination before 20 weeks.So the bill was written to conform to these precedents.
The Bill contains exceptions for the health of the mother, but no exceptions for rape, incest or fetal deformity. The Bill states that a late-term abortion would be legal in order “ to save the life of a woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself; or to prevent severe, pathological, physical morbidity of the woman. " In other words, if the pregnancy would kill or harm the woman in a serious way, a late-term abortion would be allowed.
Steckle defends the absence of exceptions for rape and incest on the grounds that a late-term abortion can further traumatize women. (In my opinion, twenty weeks is plenty of time to obtain an abortion, and I don’t believe that inflicting pain on a viable third trimester fetus will really treat the trauma of the rape itself.) Steckle cites one study that found that when women went through an abortion after rape, they felt like they had been traumatized one more time; and another study that showed that women who carried their babies to term made a negative situation into a positive situation.
As for the lack of exception on fetal disabilities, the member says “Aborting a child because of a possible abnormality is an act of discrimination against people with disabilities. We cannot cure the disease by killing the patient. Instead, we need to pursue medical solutions to help the patient. Attempts to create a perfect society by destroying those who are less than perfect leaves all of us vulnerable—because we are not perfect. And one day, we too may not pass the arbitrary and capricious 'quality of life' test. "
The penalty would range from two to five years with a possibility of a fine up to $100 000. The sentence is meant to reflect the understanding that women who choose abortion often do so through pressure, in difficult circumstances, and often as a last resort to solve problems. The penalty is comparable to that of infanticide, whereby the mother is thought to be disturbed through depression or the effects of lactation, which carries a penalty of five years.
To those critics who say that abortion is an absolute right, and that religious zealots are attempting to impose their version of morality, Steckle raises a number of points. First, the notion of human rights is a philosophical issue, and the bill acknowledges the obligation of the state to protect members of our own species who are in the perinatal period of development—from the seventh day of life until the 20th week of development. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized this vested interest of the state in protecting the unborn child in the 1988 Morgentaler decision. The decision never made abortion an absolute right—only one of the seven judges, Justice Wilson, believed it to be. The law that was struck down was said to have violated the notion of the “security of the person” because there was no legal definition of “health”, and the uneven access to therapeutic abortion committees could prevent some from obtaining abortions until later stages when it was more dangerous. It did not declare abortion a right.
In answer to the point that pro-lifers are a minority trying to impose morality, he cites an Environics poll commissioned by Life Canada stating that 30% of Canadians favored protection to the unborn child from conception; another 19% favoured it after 3 months and another 11% after 6 months. This bill is quite in sync with the mindset of Canadians on fetal protection.